Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Using argumentation to model agent decision making in economic experiments

  • Published:
Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper we demonstrate how a qualitative framework for decision making can be used to model scenarios from experimental economic studies and we show how our approach explains the results that have been reported from such studies. Our framework is an argumentation-based one in which the social values promoted or demoted by alternative action options are explicitly represented. Our particular representation is used to model the Dictator Game and the Ultimatum Game, which are simple interactions in which it must be decided how a sum of money will be divided between the players in the games. Studies have been conducted into how humans act in such games and the results are not explained by a decision-model that assumes that the participants are purely self-interested utility-maximisers. Some studies further suggest that differences in choices made in different cultures may reflect their day to day behaviour, which can in turn be related to the values of the subjects, and how they order their values. In this paper we show how these interactions can be modelled in agent systems in a framework that makes explicit the reasons for the agents’ choices based upon their social values. Our framework is intended for use in situations where agents are required to be adaptable, for example, where agents may prefer different outcome states in transactions involving different types of counter-parties.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Aart, C., Marcke, K., Pels, R., & Smulders, J. (2002). International insurance traffic with software agents. In: F. Harmelen (ed.) Proceedings of the fifteenth European conference on artificial intelligence (ECAI 2002) (pp. 623–627). Lyon, France.

  2. Anand P. (1993) Foundations of rational choice under risk. Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK

    Google Scholar 

  3. Atkinson K., Bench-Capon T. J. M. (2007) Practical reasoning as presumptive argumentation using action based alternating transition systems. Artificial Intelligence 171(10–15): 855–874

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Atkinson K., Bench-Capon T. J. M., McBurney P. (2006) Computational representation of practical argument. Synthese 152(2): 157–206

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Bardsley N. (2008) Dictator game giving: Altruism or artefact. Experimental Economics 11(2): 122–133

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Bench-Capon T. J. M. (2003) Persuasion in practical argument using value based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3): 429–448

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Bolton G. E., Katok E., Zwick R. (1998) Dictator game giving: Rules of fairness versus acts of kindness. International Journal of Game Theory 27: 269–299

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Dung P. M. (1995) On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77: 321–357

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Forsythe R., Horowitz J. L., Savin N. E., Sefton M. (1994) Fairness in simple bargaining experiments. Games and Economic Behavior 6(3): 347–369

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Fox, J., & Parsons, S. (1998). Arguing about beliefs and actions. In A. Hunter & S. Parsons (Eds.), Applications of uncertainty formalisms. Lecture notes in artificial intelligence (Vol. 1455, pp. 266–302). Berlin, Germany: Springer.

  11. Friedman M. (1953) The methodology of positive economics. In: Friedman M. (Ed.) Essays in positive economics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, USA, pp 3–43

    Google Scholar 

  12. Henrich J., Boyd R., Bowles S., Camerer C., Fehr E., Gintis H., McElreath R. (2001) In search of homo economicus. Behavioral experiments in fifteen small-scale societies. American Economic Review 91(2): 73–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hofstede G. (1991) Cultures and organizations: Software of the Mind. McGraw-Hill, New York, USA

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hogg L. M. J., Jennings N. R. (2001) Socially intelligent reasoning for autonomous agents. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics—Part A 31(5): 381–399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Inglehart R. (2000) Culture and democracy. In: Harrison L. E., Huntington S. P. (eds) Culture matters: How values shape human progress. Basic Books, New York, USA

    Google Scholar 

  16. Jonker, G. M., Dignum, F. P. M., & Meyer, J. J. (2007). Achieving cooperation among selfish agents in the air traffic management domain using signed money. In Proceedings of the sixth international joint conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent systems (AAMAS 2007) (pp. 1258–1260). New York: ACM Press.

  17. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., Tversky, A. (eds) (1982) Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  18. Karunatillake, N. C., Jennings, N. R., Rahwan, I., & Ramchurn, S. D. (2006). Managing social influences through argumentation-based negotiation. In Proceedings of the fifth international joint conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent systems (AAMAS 2006) (pp. 426–428). New York: ACM Press.

  19. Lindley D. V. (1985) Making decisions (2nd ed.). Wiley, London, UK

    Google Scholar 

  20. Mihailescu, P., Shepherdson, J., Marrow, P., Lee, L., & Lee, H.(2004). MAS platforms as an enabler of enterprise mobilisation: The state of the art. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on systems, man & cybernetics (SMC 2004) (Vol. 2, pp. 1889–1894). The Hague, The Netherlands: IEEE.

  21. Mill, J. S.(1874) On the definition of political economy, and on the method of investigation proper to it. In London and Westminster Review, October 1836. Essays on Some Unsettled Questions of Political Economy. London: Longmans, Green, Reader and Dyer.

  22. Modgil S. (2009) Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks. Artificial Intelligence 173(9–10): 901–934

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Nowak M. A., Page K. M., Sigmund K. (2000) Fairness versus reason in the Ultimatum Game. Science 289: 1773–1775

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Oosterbeek H., Sloof R., van de Kuilen G. (2004) Differences in Ultimatum Game experiments: Evidence from a meta-analysis. Experimental Economics 7(2): 171–188

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Parreira Duarte, R. L.(2009). Modelling arguments in the Dictator Game. Technical Reports. ULCS-10-006, Department of Computer Science, University of Liverpool.

  26. Parsons S. (2001) Qualitative methods for reasoning under uncertainty. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Parsons, S., Gmytrasiewicz, P., Wooldridge, M. (eds) (2002) Game theory and decision theory in agent-based systems. Kluwer Academic, Boston, MA, USA

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Ramchurn S. D., Sierra C., Godo L., Jennings N. R. (2007) Negotiating using rewards. Artificial Intelligence 171(10–15): 805–837

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Roberts J. H., Lattin J. M. (1991) Development and testing of a model of consideration set composition. Journal of Marketing Research 28: 429–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Savage L. J. (1950) The foundations of statistics. Wiley, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  31. Searle J. R. (2001) Rationality in action. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA

    Google Scholar 

  32. Shackle, G. L. S. (1961). Decision, order and time in human affairs. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press (2nd ed., 1969).

  33. Shafer G. (1986) Savage revisited. Statistical Science 1(4): 463–485

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  34. Shugan S. M. (1980) The cost of thinking. Journal of Consumer Research 7: 99–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Simon, H. A. (1957). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. In Models of bounded rationality (Vol. 2, pp. 259–268). Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.

  36. Walton D. N. (1996) Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, USA

    Google Scholar 

  37. Wooldridge M., van der Hoek W. (2005) On obligations and normative ability: Towards a logical analysis of the social contract. Journal of Applied Logic 3: 396–420

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK

    Trevor Bench-Capon & Katie Atkinson

  2. Department of Informatics, King’s College London, London, UK

    Peter McBurney

Authors
  1. Trevor Bench-Capon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Katie Atkinson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peter McBurney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katie Atkinson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bench-Capon, T., Atkinson, K. & McBurney, P. Using argumentation to model agent decision making in economic experiments. Auton Agent Multi-Agent Syst 25, 183–208 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-011-9173-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-011-9173-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation